Table 5.
Method | Matthews’ correlation coefficient (MCC) | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PIP-EL | 0.454 | 0.748 | 0.725 | 0.772 | 0.820 | – |
Extremely randomized trees (ERT) | 0.433 | 0.737 | 0.713 | 0.762 | 0.809 | 0.716 |
Support vector machine (SVM) | 0.332 | 0.683 | 0.647 | 0.720 | 0.732 | 0.006 |
ProInflam | 0.100 | 0.537 | 0.922 | 0.152 | 0.671 | 0.000007 |
The first column represents the method employed in this study. The column 2–6 respectively represent the MCC, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC value. The last column represents a pairwise comparison of AUC between PIP-EL and the other methods using a two-tailed t-test. P ≤ 0.05 indicates a statistically meaningful difference between PIP-EL and the selected composition (shown in bold).